Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition Framerate Confirmed

UPDATE: Crystal Dynamics have confirmed the PS4 version will run 1080p/60FPS. Conversely, the Xbox One will have a locked 30FPS at 1080p. The confirmation can be found at the 59:20 mark on this video.

ORIGINAL STORY: For those who’ve been contemplating the purchase of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition for either Xbox One or PS4, this fact could, and should affect your decision. Scot Amos of Crystal Dynamics has confirmed,

“The Definitive Edition will be 1080p, 30FPS on both PS4 and Xbox One”

Contrary to what the studio has been saying, the lack of 60FPS alongside the 1080p resolution makes the definitive edition much less attractive. This may act as a deal breaker for those who have been thinking about “double dipping” on the title. It’s also harder to justify the full retail price-tag when resolution is really the only upgrade.

Dylan splits time between games journalism, designing video games, and playing them. Outside of his deep involvement in the games industry, he enjoys It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Shameless, A Song of Ice and Fire, fitness, and family.

Were people really going to buy this based on it being 60 GPS? I very highly doubt that is a “dealbreaker” … really stupid article.

http://igameresponsibly.com/ Dzelly

The point of frame rate being a “deal breaker” was ONLY in reference to those who were thinking about double dipping, or buying the game again on PS4/XB1. And I think that point stands. Why buy a re-release for full-price when there’s no difference in performance? I wasn’t talking about the entire gaming community.

Nick TwinkleToes Setzer

Who is it exactly that you think would be “double dipping” just because it is 60 fps? I would not think a single rational gamer has been swayed by the fps announcement, it would make no sense to buy a game that you don’t want to playbuy just because it is 60 fps.

http://igameresponsibly.com/ Dzelly

Not that they would double dip on that alone, but buying a game that’s coined “definitive edition”, for a second time, at full-price and getting better looking graphics seems silly to me. HD remakes of other games are never full-priced. For it to be worth the price of admission for a second time there should be graphical and performance upgrades. In my eyes at least.

Nick TwinkleToes Setzer

That has nothing to do with the fps, especially in a game where 60 fps makes no difference. The problem with rebuying before was price, and still is the problem, not the fps.

http://igameresponsibly.com/ Dzelly

I agree with you fully on that, but as I said FPS makes a difference to some people, especially those that would be the game for a second time.

IWorshipCats

HD remakes are old games this is not an old game at all. Full price is perfectly normal.

Cakefish

I bet GTA V will be 60 USD when it arrives on PC, just you wait and see. It’ll be full priced even though it will arrive a year or more after launch (assuming it does eventually crop up on PC). I bet it won’t get such backlash as this port of TR is getting.

Hates bad writers.

30 FPS is better for games like this, something to do with how the eye perceives motion. Movies have been doing it for a long time for that reason, and it’s why movies like The Hobbit look so much more different from other CG movies. 60 FPS is only a deal breaker with first person shooters, the details matter in those, and that’s why we need it. 30 FPS is better for almost everything else, especially action games like Tomb Raider.

I guess it’s nice we got 1080p on both platforms, but it’s hardly worth the repurchase at full price.

extermin8or2

Movies usually are filmed in 25 (around that number might be slightly out) fps, or something around that, films like the hobbit with the HFR are 40 something fps. That’s why more people could see the costumes etc and said the effects weren’t as good.

IWorshipCats

24fps for movies…

Hates bad writers.

It’s all for the visual effect, and 30FPS truly does look best for action games like Tomb Raider (even though I don’t like the new game, I’m a fan of the old ones).

Dakan45

no not really the combat is super fast and having 60 fps makes the combat more responsive.

Hates bad writers.

I’ve played it, it isn’t fast. And it’s not for the combat, it’s for the motion of character, and the action scenes. Adventure games, and a vast majority of movies benefit from it, and it’s scientifically proven to look better. I don’t need an arm chair analyst telling me otherwise.

Dakan45

“it’s scientifically proven to look better”

What now we argue taht 30 fps are better for games?

GTFO, you are the “bad writer” andthe combat is fast everyone knows that only idiots like you dont because you havent played it.

Hates bad writers.

Actually it’s better for action based games, not heavily, or at least having it’s focal point be twitch combat. There, yes it is indeed scientifically proven. Not “all games” as you clearly haven’t been reading. FPS games need 60 frames per second they don’t do well without it, side scrolling games also need it, same with fighting games.

Dakan45

30fps is betterfor action games?

Kill yourself.

You are braindamaged.

I freaking facepalmed you ashole

Hates bad writers.

Science beats armchair analyst, you lose.

Dakan45

where is science? You just pulled the word science out of your ass but you got no proof, no evidence, thats not what science does, science provides proof, you got none.

Pathetic troll.

Hates bad writers.

Do I need to hold your hand all the way to Google? look it up little guy, you’ll find it.

Dakan45

You want me to check out what on google? that 30 fps are better for action games? what are you braindamaged? tis a well known fact that the more fps the better you pathetic troll

Dakan45

that article was laughed at by everyone in the comments, funny you praise a badly written article writen by a bad writer, funny also how the comments destroy the lack of logic of the writer.

Movies are 24-25 fps to save size and they use BLUR when you actually controlling the character you need atleast 30 fps, tomb raider combat is very fast so its more responsive at 60 fps, its basicly a twitch shooter, so your argument fails kido.

There is nothing to discuss here, you are a pathetic idiot and you should check your own horrible writting and braindamaged arguments you pathetic troll.

There is ltiteraly no advantage of 30 fps over 60 fps aside from being easier to hit that goal while 60 requires more powerfull hardware.

IWorshipCats

Saying that 1080p is the only difference is completely misleading, not true at all. Just watch some video comparison a lot of effects have been added. I own the game on PC and its now much closer to the PC version.

someguy5112

Read below comments. People care about framerate just like how others prefer 1080p over 720p upscaled. Although it may not be based on the 60 frames alone, but that added on top of everything else would be enough for almost anyone not to buy it.

Necro

1. Framerate doesnt matter for a game like this, as long as its a locked 30, that will be fine. I can only tell framerate differences in shooters and twitch games. Anything else, i really dont notice it. And its one reason most devs dont care to bring there game UNLESS shooter or twitch to 60fps. Its just not needed. I rather then put more in the effects.

2. We have known what the framerate will be from the moment they announced it. In fact they said it during the VGX. So this is nothing new.

3. Xbox1 holding PS4 back?

bigevilworldwide

Yeah but some people generally Xbots don’t seem to grasp that if it doesn’t require a lot of twitch then it doesn’t need to be 60fps….Hell comparisions have already been done where they admitted that the DE looks better than the PC version on Ultra settings

d0x360

Sorry friend but the only people making a fuss about 1080p/60 are the Sony fans. Most Xbox owners are older and therefore play games for fun not to whine about what has more pixels

el9els

Where did you draw that conclusion from? That statement needs a supporting link. Without one it reads defensive and false.

d0x360

No sorry I’ve made a spreadsheet of all gamer whining and I don’t know you so I can’t email it to you for fear of spam.

BlackestNight63

You definitely pulled those statements out of your ass.

extermin8or2

Someone cleary has no idea what they are talking about, it’s actually the other wy round… xbox owners statistically are younger and playstation owners tend to be older-also tend to have more women that buy them to play games. Personally I still barely notice the difference on fps’s let alone a 3rd person game. I have this on pc so won’t be buying ps4 version however resolution is good, rather a higher native resolution and 30fps than a lower one and 60fps.

d0x360

Xbox has always tracked with an older audience. An audience with more money to spend. Believe me or not I really do not care the slightest bit. Argue away. No more replies from me.

Jeff Pee

I’m actually very interested in this as well. As far as I know there haven’t been recent studies on this. Last one I saw was back in 2007/2008 and in that study: Xbox360 had a lot more 18-24 yr olds playing on it than the PS3. The average age of 360 owners were 35-44 and PS3 owners were 44- up.

Anybody saying that they “know” that this console or that console has older/younger audience is just going off anecdotal evidence or just assuming.

UnspokenThought

From Experian, it appears the Xbox had more of the younger and most of the average aged adult gamer 35-44. PlayStation had the highest in the 45-54 and probably due to the PlayStation 1’s tenure.

Zac Lee Martin

Uh no. The stories and constant disapproval of the XBox Live community is always saturated with its childish userbase of kids cursing and having shouting matches, and much of the time adults acting like that as well.

When I had a PS3 I pretty much never had any of those issues other than in Call of Duty(where most of its fanbase think your social status grows off of trash talking).

Seeing how 360 users buy into so much of Microsoft’s hype they certainly seem like children with parents that buy everything for them. I think an adult can do the math on what one costed cheaper past the console price(360 wifi was $100 extra, $50 live required fee, non-rechargeable controllers out of the box, lower HDD space and far more expensive replacement HDD’s, reliability). 360 was an online hype fest for the American unexperienced gamer-base.

d0x360

Just because children play online doesn’t mean the core user base is younger. I’ve played cod ghosts on ps4, one and PC. All versions are filled with children. Parents buy games and their kids often play them. You think these 10-13 year olds are buying consoles and games on their own?
I have a 13 year old son. I buy the systems and games for myself. He plays them. He isn’t the core audience. I am. His use of my games doesn’t skew the statistical fact that the average Xbox owner spends more money on gaming per year than any console or PC gamer. The average Xbox owner over 25 usually owns multiple platforms as well.

There is a reason Xbox 360 games and now (based on NPD sales stats) Xbox one games outsell their competing platforms. Its because they have more disposable income on average and the Xbox audience are considered core gamers. Its been that way since year 2 of the original Xbox. Sales stats and research studies back these facts up. I don’t know why you people are getting bent out of shape and upset about it. Why do you care so much? The only plausible explanation is you are Sony fanboys. Otherwise you wouldn’t give a damn what sells what and to whom. You could have a discussion without acting like a petulant child.

Speaking of Xbox live. There is a reason it costs money. The core service is far superior to Sony’s network. Download speeds are significantly faster, connection is more reliable, and security is clearly better. Xbox owners don’t mind paying for quality and since the my have more money to spend than your average gamer its not a big deal.

Is also prefer being able to change batteries in my controller than not. Just as I like having a removable battery in my phone. Battery dies I swap it out. I don’t have to plug it in EVER. A set of rechargeable double a batteries can charge in 15 min and last 30+ hours or if you prefer you can spend that massive $20 and get the Li-ion charge kit.

If you wanna talk about cost and WiFi with the 360 there was a reason the first generation didn’t have it built in. It added cost and a lot of gamers…gamers who care about connection quality and latency use a wired connection. If half your user base is using a Ethernet cable why add to the cost of the core system with WiFi? When WiFi chipsets came down in price Microsoft built it into the system. Remember the 360 was a lot cheaper than ps3 and Microsoft added features and cut prices as time went on unlike Sony who kept the price high and removed system features…a lot of system features actually.

At the end of the day none of this matters AT ALL. All that matters is that these systems play games. I like games so I buy all consoles regardless of price and any actual gamer would do the same.

Alkaporty

With all due respect I don’t get your “core user base” thing. I mean, in the end what counts is the people that plays online with you.

Jeff Pee

how do you know that the average xbox owner is 25? there is no data to support that. Wouldn’t a younger person have a lot more disposable income than someone who was older? Less responsibilities, No kids, Pays rent but no mortgage, Not saving up for retirement. The older someone gets, especially if they have kids, the less they buy for them selves.

d0x360

Really? Every year I’ve gotten older I make more and more money. You really think a 20 year old has more money than your average 30 year old? Are you like 16 years old?

Clearly we are getting nowhere here so this time I’m actually done. I will not reply any more so you can have the last word. I do however encourage you to do some research into the topic. As someone who works in the industry I’m privy to details a little easier as they come in on marketing reports but you can still find said info fairly easy online. Hell you can look at Sony and Microsoft stock holder reports too if you are so inclined. All these documents support that the AVERAGE Xbox owner is older and has more disposable income than the AVERAGE PlayStation owner.

Jeff Pee

CLEARLY you don’t know how to talk to someone without insulting them. Is it also standard business practice to insult the people who buy your products? Did insult you in anyway?

You make a good living, UNFROTUNATELY a lot of American aren’t as lucky you. Average job, a mortgage, a couple kids, and credit card debt. Unless they’re in your position they don’t have a lot to spend on games.

I guess even professionals fall into the common internet habits, I guess we’re only human. You seem to know what you’re talking about, but it’s really hard to take someone seriously when they resort to belittling others.

extermin8or2

Just to check right but are you talking worldwide or just in usa because I think the rest of us are talking worldwide there are several things that dont make sense about your statememt-multiple studies show the opposire over last few years, ps3 was cobsiderably more expensive than the 360 AND has a higher attacj rate of games/its user base plays on average a wider variety of genres so any one game might sell less but this is made up for by larger sales on niche titles etc. Also ps is notably more popular in europe hose population on average are better off than the average american (similar amounts of wealth shared between smaller population plus exchange rate helps-food tends to be alot cheaper particularly in the uk) only country cbox dominated was uk last gen, this gen is far tok early to draw conclusions about user bases just yet.

extermin8or2

There is data unfortunately this site osnt letting me post links to it but numerous surveys and studys have shown the same results over the past few years.

Zac Lee Martin

Sorry but when think download speed is what makes Live worth it then you’re totally invalidated. PSN has more dedicated servers on games for superior online gaming whereas in Live even the biggest exclusives fed off a host player hosting the game for everyone else so Microsoft could pocket all the money rather then use it for the actual service that requires subscription to use multiplayer.

Uh, most people use wireless now. In fact most modern modems have built in routers. Wireless is the mainstream now. Most gamers don’t even use wired connections. Wifi chips were never that expensive in the first place($100?) I could find far superior usb wireless cards the size of a usb drive for half the price even then.

A lot of system features? Please enlighten everyone. Do you want to tell everyone how amazing OtherOS functionality was when it was hardly supported and was a poor implementation? You want to suck up to the hype of Live and ignore Microsoft’s issues and force-fed updates as you insult Sony.

Grow up. I mean mentally. No one cares that you have a child. You are still thinking illogically immature. Why do you think I mentioned that Live is flooded with adults that act like children?

UnspokenThought

Strange, with the Xbox One geared towards being in all in one entertainment device, you would logically think it would be for the older generations. From what I have found, most of the older generation had Xbox 360s, compared to many younger folks having the PS3. You can even see it in the commercials for the PS4 and the Xbox One, one shows a bunch of teenagers and the other shows adults and professionals. The games themselves are typically tailored for different demographics.

This doesn’t mean if you own a PS4 you are a whiney child, or if you own an XB1 you are branded a crabby old hoot, it just means their target audiences differ slightly.

Dakan45

exactly.

Alkaporty

I’d like to know what commercials you’re talking about. Both ads are targeting young adults and the reason it’s because they were on air before Christmas.
The thing is since the Xbox 360 was cheaper, more household had this console, parents who bought the consoles to their kids or for the whole family. And now with Xbox One it is even more that case since it is a “family entertainment” console, a console for the whole family to share; playing games, watching videos, browsing, listening to TV, etc.

Dakan45

show me dem stats brah.

Jack

That comment is absolute rubish!!
60fps makes gameplay significantly more responsive and also relays more detail to our eyes in fast moving scenes which makes games more interactive and therefore more FUN.
The PS4 has a faster gpu than the xbox1 making it a little superior but this only means that effects get dialed back a little on xbox1 when neccessary.

60fps is my preference over resolution and graphical effects such as higher res textures, AA and ambient occlusion which all have a huge effect on fps.

lol

60fps means very little my tv is 480 hz, the eye ball cant see past 24-30 fps any way. you see this every day on a highway if you look a window of a car next to you tire, they will spin fwd, stand still and backwards. 60 fps means nothing. its like saying 4k is better then 1080 yet people cant even tell the difference.

its not a 4×3 to 1080 difference.

Get a load of this faggot

The eye ball can’t see past 24-30 fps? Boy, you are fucking stupid.

Zac Lee Martin

You are a serious idiot. 1080p and 4k do have an obvious difference, mainly only apparent through a monitor of 24 inches or more or through a TV 50 inches or more. 60FPS is extremely apparent. Especially for input lag. The human eye is said to capture around 60FPS but many can see improvement with even more frames but mainly only in games because of quicker response and lower frame drops.

You’re right about the “4×3 to 1080″ comment though. Next consoles everything should be 60FPS standard. There’s not much reason to go past 4k for a large population because the difference is less apparent.

I predict we might even see games go from 60FPS to around 80, 90, or 120 FPS to eventually cast out more response time. Picture quality is already here so the next place to go is getting that quality at faster rates. I don’t think we will see any games up the frame rate like that till next gen. I’m curious to see if Freesync will be updated into the consoles though.

Locoz31

Eyes cant tell the difference between 30 an 60 fps? Cant tell the differnce between 1080p and 4k? For the sake of trying to restore the brain cells I just lost reading your statement I am just going to assume you have never played a video game and have never seen either 1080p or 4k in person.

deSSy2724

Depends on the screen size…. on 5″ most of us wont see the difference between 1080p and 4K

deSSy2724

You can tell the difference but it depends on the screen size…. for example 1080p on 20″ and 1080p on 50″. Ofc you will see the difference

Brony with Sunglasses

I don’t agree with your conclusion, but as an Xbox One owner, FPS takes something of a back seat for me. Dead Rising 3 runs at 30fps, it’s perfect the way it is. It doesn’t ask too much of me at a time, so 30fps is the optimal resolution for the game.

Alkaporty

30fps isn’t a resolution…

Brony with Sunglasses

I didn’t mean to add that at the end of the post. I meant framerate. Whoops.

Alkaporty

No problem man, it happens. I personally really enjoy 60fps, but doesn’t mean, like some tends to say, that 30fps becomes unplayable once you went to 60fps. Though I prefer a fps locked at 30 instead of a game that have a hard time maintaining 60fps.

Dakan45

actually it dips to 28 everytime you drive a car.

Brony with Sunglasses

That’s marginal. 2 fps doesn’t make a world of difference.

Dakan45

at 30 fps goin to 28 you can feel the game going on like a slideshow.

Brony with Sunglasses

You must be smoking something, because dropping 2fps is next to no difference.

Dakan45

ok, what about sites talking about framerate drops on console games that run at 30 fps, they are noticable, what you think they talking about? 20 fps framerate drops? No, so when you are in a car, the game drops to 28 fps, it drops more in other sections.

Dakan45

at 30 fps goin to 28 you can feel the game going on like a slideshow.

d0x360

Dead Rising is fantastic. I liked the original but wasn’t a fan of the second. Bases in reviews I was highly skeptical but I bought it anyways. At this point I’ve bought every retail title for the Xbox one and ps4 but that’s besides the point. So back to dr3…its a major sleeper hit. It’s so much fun my non gaming girlfriend plays it which is just fantastic. The graphic quality itself is only slightly better than what can be done on the 360 BUT there is no way the 360 or ps3 could have put that many unique zombies on screen. Its simply absurd how many characters are there at any given moment and since they are all procedurally generated no 2 zombies are the same. Highly recommend people check it out.

Grey Elf

most xbox owners are older? nigga please.

deSSy2724

Look at N4G, mostly Sony fanboys/kids.

Alkaporty

1080p and 60fps are pretty good arguments for a GAMING console, I don’t know if Xbox fanboys are just too young to know what those mean or really sucking Microsoft’s dick whatever they do.
“I play games for fun but I buy a system that isn’t completely focusing on gaming” you know that your live TV and multitasking are hurting your gaming performance in the end?

deSSy2724

N4G = Sony fanboy/kids mostly….

BTW i like Sony consoles

Toulon

Sony fanboys are the most butthurt kind of “gamers”around. They cry if their version of a game isn’t 50% more powerful than the xbox one counterpart.

Alkaporty

Never read a single comment about that. It’s way more comment for fanboys like you to just shit on the head of the competition by claiming that “your” community is better.

Kirk

Lmao. Can you re-read your second sentence, then proceed to explain to me how as adults, we should take you seriously? He didn’t even mention “His” community. You don’t have to be a brand fanboy to call someone a brand fanboy.

Alkaporty

Because PS fanboys complain about the console and Xbox fanboys insult the community, seriously, it’s like that everywhere.

Dakan45

agreed sony fanboys are the worst.

Zac Lee Martin

Yeah. Darn them for complaining that a developer makes a game equal on two different platforms when one is significantly more powerful. So r00d to want a better experience that was lessened because the other platform is technically weaker.

Try not to judge a whole population.. Especially when they have good reason to be mad about getting a re-released game that they charge full price for and tell everyone it’s a whole new experience with the updated things and then they be lazy and don’t optimize it for the stronger console because they want to use the equality excuse. People buy next-gen consoles for next-gen. Not re-releases that add a couple higher res textures, particle effects, and hair physics, then charge full price, and optimize it for another console and make the other stronger consoles fan base deal with it.

If you were actual gamers then you would agree and say it sucks for PS4 users despite you being a XBox user, because it’s understandable despite what console preference that the technically stronger console shouldn’t be swept aside for equality. Equality is crap. Those millions of dollars invested in PS4’s superior architecture and performance shouldn’t be put to waste. This is just business. To think Activision at least put forth this effort as lazy as they are.

Dakan45

“Darn them for complaining that a developer makes a game equal on two
different platforms when one is significantly more powerful. So r00d to
want a better experience that was lessened because the other platform is
technically weaker.”

Welcome to pc gaming.

Also yeah i am a pc gamer. Listen if xbox one cant run this on 60 fps, then it doesnt even qualify as a next gen systems.

Ps do you remember how unoptimized games were on ps3 due to its architecture? Infact its low ram is one of the main reasons games were corridor scripted shooters with heavy focus on story, in order to be able to stream resources so they can save memory.

This game is not “optimized” for next gen consoles, its the current gen version ported to next gen consoles. Dont expect massive improvements, its a “scam edition”

Zac Lee Martin

Yea while I was typing that message I was thinking about the PC side of things but I didn’t want to mention it to get more off topic or fuel more idiocy from console-biased users.

Dakan45

heard ground zeroes is 1080p 60 fps. dont know if its true, you check it out.

Dakan45

heard ground zeroes is 1080p 60 fps. dont know if its true, you check it out.

Branden Thomas

Quit being an insecure pussy and play your damn game. You’re as bad as them by posting passive aggressive stuff like that.

Then again, maybe you need to up your standards a bit considering you forked over $100 to play the same games with no superiority.

FlyAjiraAirways

Any fanboy is the most butthurt type of gamer around.

Ulic

And PC gamers would cry if their Titanfall was in parity with Xbox One…

Dakan45

it doesnt look better than pc on ultra, i am not saying the pc version looks better (although lara’s face does) i am saying it looks diffirent but not “better” even if you compare blackflag on ps3/ps4 you can see a bigger diffirence than this joke “fraud edition” as review techusa calls it.

Hates bad writers.

The Xbox One isn’t holding it back, and nothing points to that. Lazy developers failing to optimize things is the difference, it’s why the PS3 had crappy ports like Skyrim. Bad optimization, and it isn’t the consoles fault. Only a true Sony fanboy could believe that shit.

Guest

What’s holding back infamous 2nd son then? because that’s also running at 30FPS.

Vu

PS4 is holding that back…

Hates bad writers.

Lazy developers? Take a look at the powers, it’s a smoke skinned Cole, and it’s lazy as hell. It’s not all of them, but a good majority look like it. The Neon shit just looks like some faggot hipster went to town at a design meeting. Really? Neon? Worst secondary power I’ve ever seen in a super power based IP of any medium EVER. I’ll be waiting for the real games to come out because these launch titles, and launch window titles blow, and they blow hard.

The game does nothing new, and for some retarded reason they thought a hipster faggot with the IQ of a drop out was the best idea for a protagonist.

I’ll give it credit for it’s technical achievements, but I could care less about those because the game itself is a drag. (played it at Pax).

FlyAjiraAirways

Using words like hipster and faggot bring down your relatively solid point. Neon and smoke are only two of the many powers Delsin can use in the game. They’re choosing not to advertise the best ones because that could be seen as spoilers.

Hates bad writers.

It doesn’t make me wrong, it just makes you sensitive. It’s a secondary power, and it’s lame. Hell the neon, and smoke in itself seems like it was chosen as glorified tech demo rather than something they picked because it was cool. Smoke= particle effects, neon=graphics, specifically resolution, and colors.

I’ll wait until after launch to see if it’s any different, but this game doesn’t look good from a gameplay, nor a design perspective. We’re literally playing a moron with the intelligence of a drop out, not enticing at all.

I guess all the real games for next gen are coming out next fall, Sony, and Microsoft shat the bed for the first few months, no doubt.

FlyAjiraAirways

Games achieve a certain cinematic feel when put at a framerate closer to 24/25 fps (the two most common movie framerates) so, a lot of the time, I don’t really see a problem with 30 fps. If the same game is at a higher framerate on a PC, though? That’s not fair.

deSSy2724

“If the same game is at a higher framerate on a PC, though? That’s not fair.”

Thats not fair? WTF? Do you know that you can build a much stronger PC? Of course, PC can render the game at higer frame rates, resolution and graphics (depends on the specs)

FlyAjiraAirways

inFamous: Second Son is running at 30fps because either they’re still figuring out the architecture or they’re trying to give it that classic IF1 and 2 feel. That’s all good. But if there’s a higher frame rate on PC, that’s just not fair for the console guys.

deSSy2724

Better graphics = less FPS. Its just like that…. and note that by “resolution” i dont mean “graphics”.

Its like comparing a game on PC, native 1080p and high graphics settings VS native 1080p and low graphics settings. Obiviously, if you have prettier graphics you will lose FPS. So, basically what I mean is, if you want 60 FPS, you should know that the game would look better with less FPS aka pusing graphics farther means losing FPS.

deSSy2724

Still…. this doesnt automatically means that the game is not optimized. Just like i said….

Even if the game is rendered in 1080p and 30 FPS on both consoles, that
doesnt means that the game will look the same. PS4 is stronger (FACT),
so, they will push the graphics details further on the PS4 version.

http://www.hesido.com/ hesido

You can understand the difference between 30 and 60 fps for any scene with a camera pan. There’s also a lot of action in this game, a 60fps presentation would really be nice to go with it.

Wolfman

I have the pc version, and my computer has 3 EVGA Classified NVIDIA GTX 680, even with all this computing power the frame rate sometimes dips under 60fps, this maybe the reason, as a steady 30fps is better than a choppy 60fps.
The game looks beautiful anyway.

Dakan45

doubt it, the console version dipped all the time as well.

Sherman Durr

There is obviously something wrong with your setup if you’re FPS is dipping below 60 FPS unless you’re running it at some crazy resolution.

Dakan45

this is a twtch game, the combat is basicly guys spawning and trying to run you over or destroy your cover, you have to take them out fast and the game spawns enemies every time you kill one.

Cakefish

Xbox One is not holding PS4 back as they are both on the same architecture. It’s very easy for developers to simply develop for PS4 and cut effects down for the Xbox version.

deSSy2724

3. Nope… i dont think X1 is holding PS4 back because they are very similar in terms of CPU and GPU arhitecture (its not like Cell vs Xenon anymore or PowerPC vs x86) etc.

Resolution is not the same thing as graphics details. Even if the game is rendered in 1080p and 30 FPS on both consoles, that doesnt means that the game will look the same. PS4 is stronger (FACT), so, they will push the graphics details further on the PS4 version.

I mean, do you play PC games? Just compare 1080p + very high graphics details AND 1080p + low graphics details etc.

I see it like this, the X1 version will be in 1080p, 30 FPS and medium-high graphics settings/details and PS4 version will be in 1080p, 30 FPS and high-very high graphics details.

If you are a PC gamer you should know what im talking about

Steph

In no way will 99% of gamers notice the difference in framerate on this game or most person for that matter. People love to act like they can tho. Rawr.

Hates bad writers.

30-60 is an easy difference for people who play shooters competitively. Though the average dude won’t notice at all, even though games like Tomb Raider benefit from having 30 FPS over 60.

UnspokenThought

Interesting, I notice the difference between 30 vs 60 in all games I play. It is just some games I couldn’t care less if they dropped a few frames here and there. My favorite games though? 60 minimum please. Preferably 120.

Dakan45

after playing lots of games on 60 fps i can notice it too. I want more, if i can have over 60 fps, thats a plus in my book.

Ian Williams

Meowwwww.

Dakan45

and 99% wont be able to notice the tiny little diffirencies from the pc version…just saying.

BUT HEY ITS DEFINITIVE EDITION AND ITS BETTER BECAUSE WE TELLING YOU SO.

Which reminds me a article on ign comparing ghosts on ps4 and xbone and people were like “oh you can definetly see the 720p here” then ign apologizes because the comparison was BEFORE the patch, so both run on 720p.

Long story short people pretend they can see the diffirence.

d0x360

30fps is fine. This isn’t a twitch shooter or sim racer. It’s tomb raider. That side since when was 30 fps a bad thing? Is 60 better? Yea I’m some cases but Jesus…30 is fine. This whole next gen has to be 60fps is insane. I’d rather those extra 30 frames worth of rendering budget be used to enhance the fidelity of the game in most cases.

spideynut71

Yeah, IMO some games just look weird in 60 fps. The COD franchise always looked a bit odd to me, when they started locking it into 60 fps ; BF 3 and 4 look/play much more natural, IMO. It’s the same way I feel about Blu-ray movies…especially on the new LED HDTVs…and how strange live action movies look, compared to cinema.

Now, if TR:DE is 30 fps AND has screen tearing and poor AA, then THAT would be a deal breaker for me.

Dakan45

well i played the game 60 fps and i felt i could use more. I mean the animation lare has when moving feel slow at 30 fps or maybe its the camera shake…dunno.

However from my experiance this IS a twitch shooter and NOT tomb raider.

This is how combat works in this game, enemies spawn and you have to take them out fast or you will be overun and your cover will break, everyime you kill someone the game spawns another enemy and another, so yeah its a twitch shooter. The pacing in this game is pretty damn fast when it comes to combat.

Trim Dose

30 FPS ? and they call it Definitive Edition ? re#Tards!!!

and yes this is the DEfinitive deal breaker!!

Dhddh

30FPS, whats this 1985? Fuck, this is next gen for hells sake.

UnspokenThought

If we still played with the graphics in PacMan and Donkey Kong we could have over 9000 fps, but we don’t live in that age anymore and graphic fidelity has evolved.

Noni

People are so stupid when it comes to things like frame rate. Tomb Raider isn’t a competitive-style game. Its a casual/cinematic experience that someone plays through. As long as the frame rate is consistent, then its fine. Its not a game that is a FPS, racing, or some other style with importance on quick twitching. Some people really are very very stupid.

Dakan45

and? That justifies the joke the so called “next gen” consoles are?

madbads

but its necessary for a casual cover shooter? does it really need 60 fps, they could easily do 60 fps imo.. my intel graphics runs this at medium 1366×768 45-ish fps. So these consoles are sure able to do 60 with all “next-gen” stuff they added. I think they just didnt wanna bother so much, as most console peasants dont even notice fps differences…

Dakan45

from my experiance the combat in that game is twitch shooter.

Enemies spawn all together like ninjas, you kill one of them and another spawns, if you decide to take cover and take your time, your cover will be destroyed, hobos with axes will rush you and they will throw grenades at you.

Basicly you need to be super fast and kill them fast..which kinda sucked because the combat was always over before it started.

OR MAYBE the game is slower on 30 fps, i dunno.

You can easilly build a 400$ pc and max out this game on 60 fps.

These new consoles should eat this for breakfast, but so far all i see is dissapointing perfomance.

From dead rising 3 at 28 fps while driving with 720p, to knack being a 60 fps game yet struggling to maintain 40, to shadowfall ranging from 28-30-36-38 fps, basicly never being stable and the mp running around 45 fps and never going 60, maybe 50 if you look at the sky. Or assasin creed being 30 fps

Cant say i care, graphics are god enough, now we need more fps and bigger maps with more interaction, i hope they dont make any more linear scripted corridor shooters.

madbads

“Enemies spawn all together like ninjas, you kill one of them and another spawns….”

This killed my experience with the game so much.. WTF were they thinking, oh wait..

Dakan45

yeah i was hoping to be better paced like uncharted, but you just pick up collectables from the ground and at some point the game throws a scripted combat arena that tons of enemies spawn just as fast as you can kill them, so combat ends before you even reallized what happened.

benbenkr

Once again, the developers lied. Was about to give the game a chance even if its going for a full $60… not anymore.

lesrima88

just get it on pc ,or build a gaming pc if you dont have one,you’ll be able to play at 4k,3D stereoscopic ,60+fps if you wanted too

Axe99

It’s been well documented that resolution isn’t the only upgrade, but rather character models, animation and physics have all been spruced up as well ;).

Ian Williams

Oh dear looks like the phony foreskin has been downgraded. Q the hate…

Dakan45

30 fps brah, so DEFINITIVE!!!

As reviewtechusa says “tomb raider fraud edition”

Orionsangel

The Lara Craft model was remade. That’s about it. The rest is the same technical babble they talked about for the PC version. It’s a definitive lie!

lesrima88

ladies and gentlemen welcome to the semi-next generation of gaming

Obambush

Infamous is also running at 30FPS.

Dakan45

suprised?

You are flat out wrong

Titanflop 720p garbage LMFAO

Dakan45

CRY SOME MORE BITCH. Its 60 fps and the 720p is not confirmed.

You are flat out wrong

60fps because the fidelity is so low. It’ll be closer to 30 when the game’s released. And still 720p.

Though the superior PC version will have none of these flaws.

Dakan45

60 fps is confirmed 720p is not. Those are the facts, but yeah the pc version will look better, but who cares? From what i have seen its atrashy game, you sonyfanboys dont miss anything.

Get this, the ai difficulity cannot be changed because its inthe cloud.

You are flat out wrong

Ah yes, the Magic Cloud. Is that why the bot AI is so awful?

Dakan45

cuz alpha? Or have you not noticed how bad the graphcis are in alpha.

You are flat out wrong

lol alpha six weeks out before release.

What you’re seeing is what you’re getting.

Dakan45

no its not, the alpha graphics are horrible.

Robert Lawson

NEXT GEN IS HERE!!! LOL.

ObsessedGeorge

How can MGSV be 1080p and 60fps and still have better graphics and an open world with huge draw distance? I don’t get this.

Dakan45

ConfirmeD?

GS

why does every article on here have to become a flamewar between fanboys?

Sherman Durr

It seems like PS4 fanboys are not only defending the devs but literally taking any criticism personal. Tomb Raider is a great game. I was literally shocked the first time I played it at how good it was but taking a game and re releasing a watered-down PC port with the almost irreverent multiplier DLC not only doesn’t deserve $60, it doesn’t deserve praise.